From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751331AbWDQWBo (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:01:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751324AbWDQWBo (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:01:44 -0400 Received: from ns1.siteground.net ([207.218.208.2]:4302 "EHLO serv01.siteground.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751274AbWDQWBn (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:01:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:02:38 -0700 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Nick Piggin , Steven Rostedt , LKML , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andi Kleen , Martin Mares , bjornw@axis.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, benedict.gaster@superh.com, lethal@linux-sh.org, Chris Zankel , Marc Gauthier , Joe Taylor , David Mosberger-Tang , rth@twiddle.net, spyro@f2s.com, starvik@axis.com, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] robust per_cpu allocation for modules Message-ID: <20060417220238.GD3945@localhost.localdomain> References: <1145049535.1336.128.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4440855A.7040203@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - serv01.siteground.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - scalex86.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:55:02AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > If I'm following you correctly, this adds another dependent load > > to a per-CPU data access, and from memory that isn't node-affine. > > I am also concerned about that. Kiran has a patch to avoid allocpercpu > having to go through one level of indirection that I guess would no > longer work with this scheme. The alloc_percpu reimplementation would work regardless of changes to static per-cpu areas. But, any extra indirection as was proposed initially is bad IMHO. > > > If so, I think people with SMP and NUMA kernels would care more > > about performance and scalability than the few k of memory this > > saves. > > Right. Me too :) Kiran